List Sale Articles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination, scoping, or freshness context — so it contributes no behavioural value above the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short clause with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument, annotated read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nevertheless leaves the term 'sales articles' and the shape of the result unexplained, which matters given no output schema exists to fill the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a bare enumeration with no filter arguments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ('Get sales articles'), which is enough to identify a retrieval tool for sale-article records. However, it offers no differentiation from near-neighbours like list_purchase_articles or list_products, and 'sales articles' is left undefined for an agent unfamiliar with the Estonian term.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of what distinguishes this listing from list_products or list_purchase_articles, and no prerequisites or filtering context. The agent must infer everything about invocation conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.